Essentially, this note is another me too.
On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
(iv) If that note is acceptable to the authors/ editors/
WG/ etc., generation of a document that incorporates the
changes. That version is, or is not, posted at the
discretion of the RFC Editor and/or WG Chair and/or AD.
In other words, the document editor prepares a clean draft with
the RFC Editor note(s) incorporated, rather than expecting the
RFC Editor to do so. If a draft is posted at (ii), it implies
that significant changes have occurred and may trigger the
re-review to which Spencer refers. The IESG approval at (iii)
is considered final and the document at (iv) simply an editorial
matter of splicing the changes in. If that latter document is
posted at all, it is with the understanding that additional
substantive comments, or even post-IESG fine-tuning, are
inherently disruptive and time-consuming and that they should
not be accepted unless they raise new, very significant,
showstopper-level issues. Otherwise, we would never finish
Personally I would like to see that whatever document enters into the
RFC-Production function (to use the terminology from the RFC Editor
model[*]) has a clean copy in the repository. That allows for a very
clean interface between the streams and the RFC-producer. So, I would
argue that the result of (iv) is always posted.
I can imagine that the posting of an I-D may cause Pavlovian reactions
but maybe there are means by which one can prevent folk to mistake the
posting of such I-D as another request for review.
[*] For those for who this terminology is new see:
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Ietf mailing list